just aksin'

They admit Obama needs to go to past Clinton appointments to find competent people yet they choose Obama over Hillary!

Evidently it's ok to have no experience as president but you better have some to be in the cabinet.

The Constitution gives the President the power to pardon whomever he wants, except in cases of impeachment. Holder could have objected more, but there's no reason that Bill Clinton had to take his advice.

hillary no way!!!!!

so many other people are more qualified

I don't think my reasons against choosing Hillary for Sec of State are "twisted."

You can take your precious sanctimony and twist it wherever it does you the most good.

"Sometimes, I wonder whether some of Obama supporters actually believe Obama is an idiot...[skip}...Sometimes I wonder whether some of you ever believed in the judgment of the person you voted for."

That's reasonable wondering, given all the nay-saying going on merely two weeks and a day post-election. From this voter, I can say I did and do believe (trust) in the judgment of the person I voted for. And I certainly don't think he's an idiot.

"Honestly, I do not want Hillary to be SoS not for the twisted reasons you have, but for the fact that it might derail the good deeds Bill's foundation is doing in Africa and elsewhere especially with twin killers, malaria and aids."

I'm not opposed to Hillary as SoS per se, can see pros/cons, but you voiced a similar concern of mine--whatever faults can be piled up against Bill (rightly or wrongly), I think his work in the world at large, toward the causes you mentioned in particular, is important, and I wouldn't want that work derailed, nor that work to interfere with Hillary's work if she were to become SoS.

"Hillary for Secretary of State?

The same Hillary that pandered to the worst of all ponderables and promised to go "nuklar" on Iran when she ran for Prez?

Uh...uh-huh...

-- Klytus "

Again, you are litigating the primaries even though Obama won that and the presidency. Yes, it is the same Hillary who when Obama needed her to campaign in Florida, Pensylvannia,Ohio etc on his behalf called her" a friend." Sometimes, I wonder whether some of Obama supporters actually believe Obama is an idiot. Do you think Obama was out of his mind to offer the position of SoS to a woman who "pandered to the worst of all ponderables and promised to go 'nuklar' on Iran when she ran for Prez?" Sometimes I wonder whether some of you ever believed in the judgment of the person you voted for.

When Hillary was campaigning hard for her supporters and others to give "her friend" Obama the chance to be elected to the presidency, I did not hear or see any of you come to the board to pontificate on the sins of Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill. How anti-American his foundation and business dealings are; how "ethically challenged" the former president is even though there is no evidence except innuendos from the same people and their enasblers in the media who have haunted him throughout his presidency.

Honestly, I do not want Hillary to be SoS not for the twisted reasons you have, but for the fact that it might derail the good deeds Bill's foundation is doing in Africa and elsewhere especially with twin killers, malaria and aids. As an african-american, I have a vicarious interest in seeing former president Clinton's foundation succeed in Africa rather than Hillary as SoS with the twisted notion that when the foundation gets funds from governments such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, China it represents conflict of interest to American policies.

What is funny with the media and all of you on this is that it is okay for us to deal with China when they binge on our treasuries and assets and prop up our way of life even though they have been accused of human rights violations and supporting the genocidal regime in Sudan.The same cannot be said of them and other regimes we detest when they give or donate money for Clinton's Foundation for Africa. Oooh, it is a conflict of interest. This goes for all the pundits in the media, Fox, MSNBC, CNN etc and the posters who shout at the top of your voices in driving the so-called "Clinton confict of interest drama"-HYPOCRITES.

I've really had it with all the lefty hand-wringing over Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Obviously, she'd do a better job at it than just about anybody Obama could pick. Let's look at that stellar group -- John Kerry, that cure for insomnia; the ever-present, grasping Bill Richardson; Republican refugee Chuck Hagel or any of the others. But, again, it seems that the people who love Obama the most, don't trust his judgment, well, where it concerns Hillary Clinton, that is.

"Oh, she's too tied to her husband and his global initiative to be impartial."

"We can't deal with the people that Bill Clinton deals with, they're BAD, BAD people!"

What? Are they serious?

Is this REALLY all the left knows about the practical workings of back-door diplomacy, not to mention the valuable ways in which "hum-int" is gathered. It's pretty well-understood, if not always acknowledged officially, that we talk to people we don't like through any number of charitable organizations and that certain people become "assets" this way. And yet the bloggers blather on about it! I'm a progressive and even I've come to think that these bloggie Clinton bashers need to crack a foreign policy text book -- no, not a BLOG, a BOOK, pull their heads out of their collective butts and shut up. (But it's not surprising they're as unobservant as they are. They certainly haven't noticed that Obama isn't a liberal! And even if they did, these people are as bad as extreme Bush supporters. They would forgive Obama anything, up to and including lopping off Mother Theresa's head with a chainsaw, were she still with us! Case in point, they're livid at Harry Reid for following Obama's orders concerning Joe Lieberman's chairmanship, but they seem to have totally over-looked the fact that Obama issued those orders in the first place! Go figure.)

And Obama. He hasn't even taken office and I'm already sick to death of him. If his transition team tossed Senator Clinton's name out there just to get those sycophantic new anchor butt-moisteners like Chris Matthews to "vet" her in the media -- which, if your last name is Clinton, really means "assault by cable television" -- or if he wasn't serious about nominating her in the first place and just named her as a possibility so he could say he'd considered her for something, then his so-called "judgment" IS flawed. Such a public flogging is unseemly and unnecessary and you can bet that no political couple other than Bill and Hillary Clinton would be put through it. But it's as though Obama's team is going out of their way to set her up and then humiliate her. You'd think they'd know better than to diss someone who, after a narrow loss in the primaries, worked diligently for Obama, but they've already got their goons at the Chicago Tribune speculating -- without a shred of proof, of course -- that there are "speed bumps" in the vetting process of the former President and that Bill Clinton's "integrity" is what's holding up the process.

It's such total crap. And it would be laughable if it weren't so typical, and unfair, and expected and annoying.

The ironic thing is that it's not like Obama even marginally differs from her policy-wise. Her positions became his positions; it's like he copied off of the homework of the smartest girl in class. He's never been in any way critical of any of Clinton's positions other than her vote on the Iraq War. (I've always thought that this was a dodge. I generally see Obama as a political coward who, had he actually been IN the Senate at the time of the Iraq War vote, would have voted to give the authorization for war before you could say "Tony Rezco"...or, more likely, just as soon as everyone else had voted so he could claim "political will.")

Nothing changes. It's the same old Obama-instigated Clinton-bashing on a different day.

I personally think that Obama's real motive is to blunt the effectiveness of the Clinton Global Initiative because:

1.) he doesn't want any foreign contact he can't control, and,

2.) the possibility of comparison with Clinton on a policy-level scares him. It should.

All that said, I really actually hope that Senator Clinton turns it down. Why set herself up to be a target of the loonie left and the rigid right? If she's going to be crucified in the media and on the blogs, which she will be, she should at least be crucified for her own work and on her own terms, not in service to a President who views her as little more than his housekeeper. It would also be nice to see her deny to wingnuts and the nutroots access to their favorite sport of Hillary-bashing for a while. I'll support her in whatever decision she makes, but I think it's in the best interest of my country that she stay in the Senate, take charge of health care, and challenge the ineffectual Harry Reid for Senate Majority Leader. (This is the last thing Obama wants because he doesn't want her having any real influence to hone his agenda. Understandable, he wants control, and he's never been what one would call a "legislative maverick"...as evidenced by the six months he actually legislated, that is.) I think that she can be much more effective in the Senate and still use the opportunity to further hone her foreign policy credentials.

And, hey, he's always got John Kerry!